–Economic Problem:Jeffrey M. Jones notes that a smaller percentage of Americans is citing an economic issue as the top problem in the U.S. “Fifty-seven percent of Americans mention an economic issue when asked to name the most important problem facing the United States today, the lowest since June 2010, when the percentage was also 57%. The last time it fell below this level was with a 55% reading in December 2009… Though economic issues such as the economy in general, unemployment, and the deficit still rank among Americans’ top concerns for the country today, economic issues are less commonly mentioned now than at any point in the last three years. The most notable trend is the growing percentage of Americans saying dissatisfaction with government is the most important problem facing the country today, now at levels not seen in nearly 40 years.”

–Retirement:Allison Schrager says there shouldn’t be different retirement ages for different incomes. “Poorer people’s retirement needs may be different to those of the better-off. However, that doesn’t justify keeping the retirement age fixed for everyone else. Life expectancy has increased for most people, albeit at different rates depending on your income or other demographic factors such as gender or race. When everyone gets a state pension, it’s most sensible to set the retirement age based on the median person and target populations with special needs directly. One solution that has been proposed is income-specific retirement ages. However, I recently explained why means-testing, or basing benefits on income, creates perverse incentives. It’s also a slippery slope. Men of African descent, even after controlling for income, have shorter life expectancies than men of European decent. So by the same logic, your race should determine when you can claim your pension. Yet basing retirement age on other demographic factors seems absurd; why is income any different?”

–Keynesian Flaw:Scott Sumner sees a flaw at the heart of Keynesian economics. “There is no empirical study that shows the 2009 stimulus was effective. It’s not even clear new Keynesian theory implies it was effective. It might, but it also might not. There is nothing scientific about “the multiplier.” And many of the arguments made by pundits (with a few notable exceptions like Avent and Yglesias) are deeply misleading to readers. Let’s start with the easy part. New Keynesian theory predicts that the fiscal multiplier will be zero if the central bank is targeting inflation in a forward-looking fashion. That is, increased deficit spending will not increase expected future growth in aggregate demand. The smarter Keynesians know this, but the “smarter Keynesians” are a very, very small group. If you polled PhD trained economists in America, I’d guess less that 10% know this, maybe less than 2%. Even worse, many of the Keynesians who do know this fail to mention it in most of their “pro-stimulus” screeds, thus giving average readers the impression that a positive multiplier is the default assumption, and that it’s up to those who disagree to explain why. No, it’s up to those who believe fiscal stimulus would cause the Fed to stop targeting inflation (or stop Taylor Rule-type policies) to explain why they believe this.”

About Real Time Economics

Real Time Economics offers exclusive news, analysis and commentary on the U.S. and global economy, central bank policy and economics. Send news items, comments and questions to the editors and reporters below or email realtimeeconomics@wsj.com.